Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Comparative Political Studies
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SCHMIDT, V. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Does Discourse Matter in the Politics of Welfare State Adjustment?

VIVIEN A. SCHMIDT

Boston University

In the reform of the welfare state, countries' experiences depend not only on their economics, institutions, and policy responses but also on politics, that is, on governments' ability to gain agreement for reform through discourse, understood as both a set of ideas and an interactive process. This article seeks to show not only how discourse matters but also when it matters, that is, when it acts as a causal influence on welfare reform, altering perceptions of interests and overcoming institutional obstacles to change. It demonstrates this through the examination of three matched sets of cases in which the presence of a coherent discourse contributed to the success of welfare state reform and its absence contributed to its failure. The matched pairs are Britain and New Zealand, the Netherlands and Germany, and Italy and France.

Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2, 168-193 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0010414002035002002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Media Culture SocietyHome page
R. Parker and O. Parenta
Explaining contradictions in film and television industry policy: ideas and incremental policy change through layering and drift
Media Culture Society, September 1, 2008; 30(5): 609 - 622.
[PDF]

Home page
 Global Social PolicyHome page
S. Mcbride and K. Mcnutt
Devolution and Neoliberalism in the Canadian Welfare State: Ideology, National and International Conditioning Frameworks, and Policy Change in British Columbia
Global Social Policy, August 1, 2007; 7(2): 177 - 201.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Theoretical PoliticsHome page
B. Vis and K. van Kersbergen
Why and how do Political Actors Pursue Risky Reforms?
Journal of Theoretical Politics, April 1, 2007; 19(2): 153 - 172.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of European Social PolicyHome page
A. L. Ellingsaeter
'Old' and 'new' politics of time to care: three Norwegian reforms
Journal of European Social Policy, February 1, 2007; 17(1): 49 - 60.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Comparative Political StudiesHome page
E. Montpetit, C. Rothmayr, and F. Varone
Institutional Vulnerability to Social Constructions: Federalism, Target Populations, and Policy Designs for Assisted Reproductive Technology in Six Democracies
Comparative Political Studies, March 1, 2005; 38(2): 119 - 142.
[Abstract] [PDF]